The High Court has refused John Meagher’s application to set aside a judgment for almost €7 million obtained by Danske Bank A/S, trading as Danske Bank, after he failed to enter an appearance. The court also refused to set aside later orders made in efforts to enforce the judgment. A separate application seeking his committal was put back for a later date.
The judgment was granted on 25 February 2013 in the Commercial Court. Meagher argued that he had not received the summary summons, which had been sent by ordinary post to an address in Milltown, Ashbourne, County Meath, under an order for substituted service. He sought to overturn that service order, saying the address was not his residence and that he had never lived there or owned the house.
Justice Michael Peart rejected that challenge. The judgment records evidence that Meagher had used the Milltown address in company filings and that, in December 2012, he gave it as his postal address to an employee of a firm acting for a receiver over his properties. Meagher denied giving the address. The judge found the evidence supporting its use for service persuasive and said there was no proper basis to set aside the substituted-service order.
The court also considered Meagher’s claim that he had no knowledge of the proceedings before judgment. The judge said he did not believe that claim, citing the evidence about the address and the absence of affidavits from Meagher’s sister and brother-in-law, who owned the house. Meagher’s niece had filed an affidavit disputing a summons server’s account of an attempted visit to the property.
The judge concluded that service had complied with the court’s order and that the judgment had not been irregularly obtained. In those circumstances, Meagher needed to set out an arguable defence to the bank’s claim to have the judgment set aside. His affidavits did not state a defence, and the court found no exceptional reason to proceed without one.
Justice Peart therefore refused to set aside the 25 February judgment or any subsequent order. The judgment notes that the parties agreed the bank’s committal application would be dealt with later; the court did not decide that application in this ruling.